Take the Sweetjesus Duende vs Waves SSL blind test

Discuss music production with Ableton Live.

Which sounds better?

Mix A
6
21%
Mix B
23
79%
 
Total votes: 29

b0unce
Posts: 5379
Joined: Wed Apr 19, 2006 4:16 pm

Post by b0unce » Sat Apr 14, 2007 12:39 pm

did you listen to those wavs yourself ?
B has uglyass pops-crackles....I think B sounds fatter on these headphones[mdr-v900]<<<--iBook/internalsoundcard, but whats up with those artifacts ? they're in the way, so to speak..
spreader of butter

sweetjesus
Posts: 8803
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: www.fridge.net.au
Contact:

Post by sweetjesus » Sat Apr 14, 2007 12:50 pm

b0unce wrote:did you listen to those wavs yourself ?
B has uglyass pops-crackles....I think B sounds fatter on these headphones[mdr-v900]<<<--iBook/internalsoundcard, but whats up with those artifacts ? they're in the way, so to speak..

whoa shit didnt check them
no

sweetjesus
Posts: 8803
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: www.fridge.net.au
Contact:

Post by sweetjesus » Sat Apr 14, 2007 8:00 pm

b0unce wrote:did you listen to those wavs yourself ?
B has uglyass pops-crackles....I think B sounds fatter on these headphones[mdr-v900]<<<--iBook/internalsoundcard, but whats up with those artifacts ? they're in the way, so to speak..

just checked

the pops n stuff are indeed nasty

hmmm

that was an offline render. i wonder if its a bug

Machinate
Posts: 11648
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2004 2:15 pm
Location: Denmark

Post by Machinate » Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:00 pm

dom wrote:also i pushed a.wav by 0.5db because they're not normalized and b.wav is slightly louder...
And there, my friends, is the reason why we all feel that b.wav sounds "phatter"...
mbp 2.66, osx 10.6.8, 8GB ram.

sweetjesus
Posts: 8803
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: www.fridge.net.au
Contact:

Post by sweetjesus » Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:03 pm

Machinate wrote:
dom wrote:also i pushed a.wav by 0.5db because they're not normalized and b.wav is slightly louder...
And there, my friends, is the reason why we all feel that b.wav sounds "phatter"...
put it up that .5 db and still have a listen

Machinate
Posts: 11648
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2004 2:15 pm
Location: Denmark

Post by Machinate » Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:07 pm

sweetjesus wrote:
Machinate wrote:
dom wrote:also i pushed a.wav by 0.5db because they're not normalized and b.wav is slightly louder...
And there, my friends, is the reason why we all feel that b.wav sounds "phatter"...
put it up that .5 db and still have a listen
Upload that, and I will :-P
mbp 2.66, osx 10.6.8, 8GB ram.

sweetjesus
Posts: 8803
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: www.fridge.net.au
Contact:

Post by sweetjesus » Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:10 pm

Machinate wrote:
sweetjesus wrote:
Machinate wrote: And there, my friends, is the reason why we all feel that b.wav sounds "phatter"...
put it up that .5 db and still have a listen
Upload that, and I will :-P
get your hand off your lemur and just move a knob up a notch.

ill redo all the tests as everyone likes to make them technically accurate as possible since im gonna buy the duende.

the eq's the winnah for me.

Machinate
Posts: 11648
Joined: Thu Jun 24, 2004 2:15 pm
Location: Denmark

Post by Machinate » Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:12 pm

so is the duende mix b? I like that one the most, but I can't really put my finger on why...
mbp 2.66, osx 10.6.8, 8GB ram.

sweetjesus
Posts: 8803
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: www.fridge.net.au
Contact:

Post by sweetjesus » Sat Apr 14, 2007 9:24 pm

Machinate wrote:so is the duende mix b? I like that one the most, but I can't really put my finger on why...
same

its the glue in the mix i keep hearing everyone refer to with SSL's.

it defies logic .. its fucked but i trust my ears and everyone else's.

edit: yeah in the first test: A = waves, B = duende

Mike Goodwin
Posts: 1119
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 6:29 pm

Post by Mike Goodwin » Sun Apr 15, 2007 12:47 am

I would just like to point out that the Waves SSL4000 are emulating this mixer...
Image
And the duende software is based on the same software that is in the C series of SSL mixers....
Image
So it is a matter of taste. They are not intended to sound the same. This is just info from the SSL site I am not making this stuff up.

sweetjesus
Posts: 8803
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: www.fridge.net.au
Contact:

Post by sweetjesus » Sun Apr 15, 2007 12:52 am

Mike Goodwin wrote:I would just like to point out that the Waves SSL4000 are emulating this mixer...
Image
And the duende software is based on the same software that is in the C series of SSL mixers....
Image
So it is a matter of taste. They are not intended to sound the same. This is just info from the SSL site I am not making this stuff up.
hi mik

yes u are right
however the 9000/C series code emulates the 4000 series.

so in a sense its SSL emulating the 4000 vs Waves emulating the 4000.

Mike Goodwin
Posts: 1119
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 6:29 pm

Post by Mike Goodwin » Sun Apr 15, 2007 1:19 am

sweetjesus wrote: hi mik

yes u are right
however the 9000/C series code emulates the 4000 series.

so in a sense its SSL emulating the 4000 vs Waves emulating the 4000.
wow now that is just getting sad in a way, cant we just do anything new? The whole emulation thing is getting out of hand. :?

sweetjesus
Posts: 8803
Joined: Wed Mar 31, 2004 3:12 pm
Location: www.fridge.net.au
Contact:

Post by sweetjesus » Sun Apr 15, 2007 1:47 am

Mike Goodwin wrote:
sweetjesus wrote: hi mik

yes u are right
however the 9000/C series code emulates the 4000 series.

so in a sense its SSL emulating the 4000 vs Waves emulating the 4000.
wow now that is just getting sad in a way, cant we just do anything new? The whole emulation thing is getting out of hand. :?
yes
except that SSL built their own consoles and wrote their own code based on their own knowledge of their own product. I don't think that's sad.

it sounds fucking awesome actually.

i just used it on a mixdown of a complete track. im sold. just hoping some others may also go this route and appreciate the resulting quality

eyeknow
Posts: 5822
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2005 6:16 am

Post by eyeknow » Sun Apr 15, 2007 7:46 am

Like I was saying with the cpu load/etc......it's the logical choice :wink:

Then, you can also get that drum plugin that is supposed to be EVEN BETTER than the stuff you get....

Now, here's the next test though......the mother of all tests......why ain't ya got a liquid mix to so how it compares......hmmmmmmm? Mr "I got all the goodies?"......... :P

Mike Goodwin
Posts: 1119
Joined: Tue Nov 22, 2005 6:29 pm

!

Post by Mike Goodwin » Mon Apr 16, 2007 1:05 am

sweetjesus wrote:
yes
except that SSL built their own consoles and wrote their own code based on their own knowledge of their own product. I don't think that's sad.

it sounds fucking awesome actually.

i just used it on a mixdown of a complete track. im sold. just hoping some others may also go this route and appreciate the resulting quality
You have a good point. It is just SSL moving forward. I am not saying that it fails to sound fantastic. I belive that it would. I have only worked with the waves versioin and I like them a lot. So Duende would be great if you are into external DSP tech I for one had very bad expearance with dsp cards and live but that is just me. Enjoy it!

Post Reply